NSA agent 1: So we need Apple to scan this image on all phones but they won’t do it because only we need it.
GHCQ agent 2: No worries we got you covered we’ll add it to our list as well.
After criticism, Apple to only seek abuse images flagged in multiple nations
131–140 of 255 posts
Re: After criticism, Apple to only seek abuse images flagged in multiple nations
#132Multiple nations? USA+Canada? China+HongKong? Russia+Belarus? In practice, this statement means nothing good.
It does mean that Apple is able and willing to manage country-specific blacklists.
Re: After criticism, Apple to only seek abuse images flagged in multiple nations
#133Trust lost last week. This doesn’t matter.
I’m saying it doesn’t matter to me because I’ve moved out of their ecosystem. I’m done.
Re: After criticism, Apple to only seek abuse images flagged in multiple nations
#134This is by far the biggest misstep of Tim Cook’s tenure at Apple thus far. If they don’t kill this program soon, it’s going to overshadow the entire upcoming iPhone event, and will follow Apple around like a dark cloud for years. I can see the headlines now: “New iPhone launches amid massive new privacy concerns.” Anytime someone praises Apple for privacy, anywhere on the internet, there will be a tidal wave of peopl…
The folks who choose iPhone in part because of a perception of relative privacy and respect for the user (like myself) will think twice. My two concerns are that Android as an ecosystem is almost certainly still worse, and that the vast majority of users will not care. I’m tempted to jailbreak my devices going forward, although I guess the folks at Apple would say that makes me a pedophile. Edit: seeking recommendati…
You can use something like CalyxOS with a pixel 5
Re: After criticism, Apple to only seek abuse images flagged in multiple nations
#135This is by far the biggest misstep of Tim Cook’s tenure at Apple thus far. If they don’t kill this program soon, it’s going to overshadow the entire upcoming iPhone event, and will follow Apple around like a dark cloud for years. I can see the headlines now: “New iPhone launches amid massive new privacy concerns.” Anytime someone praises Apple for privacy, anywhere on the internet, there will be a tidal wave of peopl…
If they kill the program, headlines will read: “Apple refuses to protect sexually abused children” or “Apple sides with protecting child pornographers.”
I anecdotally see no backlash outside of HN and the tech/libertarian-focused parts of Reddit. To the casual iPhone buyer making up their billions in revenue, turning back on the program wouldn’t be good optics. Obviously my statement is purely conjecture, I’ll admit that.
Re: After criticism, Apple to only seek abuse images flagged in multiple nations
#136This entire project has been a public relations catastrophe not only for Apple, but also for the NCMEC. Almost no one held the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in low regard prior to last week. Why would we? It's one of the best, most noble causes that have ever existed. Then, Marita Rodriguez, an executive director at NCMEC, reassured employees in an internal memo that was unfortunately leaked:[1] "I…
This affair has me wondering about NCMEC and if it has publicly accountable oversight.
Re: After criticism, Apple to only seek abuse images flagged in multiple nations
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
A FISA subpoena or an NSL can only compel Apple to give certain types of information that Apple already has. They can’t compel Apple to gather information they don’t already have.
That can’t be true because the old pen/trap orders required installation of a device to record the calls.
A wiretap order is a different kind of order and goes through the district court, not FISA. The legal standard for it is also much higher than for other subpoenas by statute.
Re: After criticism, Apple to only seek abuse images flagged in multiple nations
#138This is by far the biggest misstep of Tim Cook’s tenure at Apple thus far. If they don’t kill this program soon, it’s going to overshadow the entire upcoming iPhone event, and will follow Apple around like a dark cloud for years. I can see the headlines now: “New iPhone launches amid massive new privacy concerns.” Anytime someone praises Apple for privacy, anywhere on the internet, there will be a tidal wave of peopl…
This I think is a bit of HN myopia. I've talked around and nobody I know is even aware of this, when I brought it up, they didn't care about the issue. It's not news in the commons, it's not on CNN, Fox or MSNBC right now as a headline. It's one of those tertiary concerns that frustrates some groups, but most people are not aware and would only marginally maligned, and a good 2/3 of people really don't care. I suspec…
[deleted]
Re: After criticism, Apple to only seek abuse images flagged in multiple nations
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
That can’t be true because the old pen/trap orders required installation of a device to record the calls.
A wiretap order is a different kind of order and goes through the district court, not FISA. The legal standard for it is also much higher than for other subpoenas by statute.
FISA is from the 1970s and covered wiretapping.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveil...
Re: After criticism, Apple to only seek abuse images flagged in multiple nations
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This problem is the capability > The only way to prevent all this is for the system not to exist. I've been having trouble following this argument over the last week. Isn't it clear that the capability already exists? Whether or not Apple goes through with its CSAM plan, the capability is evidently there. In other words, since Apple is a closed system, the capability was there before they announced the CSAM plans.…
It's a very ill-considered argument, because Apple obviously already has the capability of pushing literally any conceivable software update to iPhones. Apple (and thus iPhones) already have the capability to do anything you can conceive of, regardless of how terrible. For instance, iPhones have the capability of activating the cameras at all times, detecting when they capture compromising or embarrassing video, and…
That isn't the argument at all. What Apple can't have happen without major reputational damage is get caught doing it without telling its customers.
Thus this is seen as a marketing backdoor to the actual backdoor. This is seen as a ploy that later gives Apple the plausible deniability argument that the government is making them do it (other forms of content) even though they created the means (on device scanning) for the government to exploit.
Why limit it to content that will be uploaded to iCloud? Why limit iMessage scanning to kids? Why not also let the government know? Why limit it to child porn since the system works for any image? Why limit it to 30 hits?